King Charles I's trial and, rather "sudden" death in 1649 after Parliament’s victory during the time of the Civil War was led and customarily viewed as the outstanding beginning of an age that reigns that ended with the recovery of the sovereignty in 1660. In Tyrannicide Brief, Geoffrey Robertson says, " But it has been the British way to vaguely ignore the Republic, to deplore the prosecution of the King and to pretend that the whole liberty dates from what is dubbed.. ‘the Glorious Revolution’ of 1689..." (24) Which was a great reminder of the prejudice times that were occurring that involved the significance of Charles. For a brief outcome, the days before the French Revolution, Geoffrey Robertson construed the legitimate democracy that was portrayed in England in those times, which included all of the constitutional guarantees for religious and governmental freedom. Many democracies during the twentieth century were completely involved with the court of parliament and the independence from irrational arrest. In the 1640s, the pressure that occurred at intervals of the court and king over the tariff drove them to the appeal of the Magna Carta and the independence of those individuals involved with the law that lied beneath it. When Charles adequately affirmed war on his own, he caused the …show more content…
Robertson argued that preceding research have sugar coated over the trials or either have only felt a sense of sympathy for Charles I. Robertson, did this study of these individuals during the trials because of Charles I was the first contemporary monarch to be put on these specific trial for corruptions against his individual public. The court that were in charge of his trail went on and rejected the altercations that were being had during the